Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Vox Day - "There is no god. Because I'm an asshole."

Submitted by kellym78 on March 12, 2008 - 1:16pm.

I think I’ve been postponing this project long enough, and since other people on our forums are starting to talk about this book, I should probably stop playing Rock Band and get my butt in gear. So, welcome to the first in a series of posts discussing Vox Day’s The Irrational Atheist.

I am going to be going through this book one chapter at a time in order to keep the posts relatively short and still allow for a detailed analysis. I mentioned that plan to Vox Day, who kindly provided me with a complimentary copy of this book, and his suggestion was to read the entire book first before beginning. After getting about half-way through it, I didn’t see anything that necessitated that, but just as an FYI, if any of my points of contention are dealt with in later chapters, I’ll note that in later posts.

The first thing I noticed about this book is that Day’s writing style is quite humorous, and if I may, even endearing. This is troublesome as many readers will fall into the trap of getting caught up in the seemingly personable style and disregarding critical inquiry of the content. Day comes off as the friendly but mischievous antagonist in what he terms “an intellectual deathmatch” (p. 3) between himself and the “Unholy Trinity” of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. I must also note a point of agreement before I continue into the actual substance of the book: I appreciate Day’s regard for the autodidactic learner and his insistence that one not be swayed by degrees and credentials as they don’t necessarily make one’s arguments more or less valid. (p. 3) This is a point far too often missed by the pseudo-intellectual crowd who seem to desire a type of hegemonious rule over knowledge itself with authority to speak on a subject deemed only by universities. (I won’t go into the bass-ackwards logic at play there…at least not here.)

So, on to the good stuff. Day starts out by letting the reader know that he doesn’t care if we go to hell, which would seem to be against the mandate of his deity who commands his followers not only to care, but to grieve for the lost souls in the world and try their damnedest to convert us. At any rate, all you atheists can put your guard down because this guy doesn’t want to convert you and doesn’t even care if you go to hell. Nice try. He even goes as far as claiming that he is tolerant of, and even likes, the variety of beliefs and one-way entries to heaven, but that it is the atheists (embodied by Dawkins, et al.) who don’t. I can only speak for myself here when I emphatically state that I do not care what anybody believes—just keep it out of my government and out of my face. If it wasn’t for the intrusion of religion into public policy and the stubborn insistence to continually remind us of our future in hell, I wouldn’t even waste my time correcting them.

Day asks a series of questions regarding the tolerance of religious beliefs and I would like to briefly address them. Does your “insanity” affect me? Yes, for the aforementioned reasons among others. Last time I checked, people didn’t condemn others to hell or kill people over the Minnesota Vikings making it to the Super Bowl, so I don’t find that analogy compelling. To put a little spin on your plea for tolerance, all I ask, and all the vast majority of atheists ask, is to be left alone to disbelieve what we choose to disbelieve and to live how we decide to live. It’s very gratuitous of you to want to allow all of the “insane” people freedom to believe whatever they like, although labeling all of humanity as insane is a bit of a stretch, but once one realizes that the patients are running the asylum, what should be done?

Day starts his list of the evils of atheism by blaming the philosophers of the Enlightenment era for paving the way for “the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and dozens of other massacres in the name of human progress,” which I find to be amusing given that were it not for such revolutions, we would still be living in feudal societies and caste systems quite antithetical to his own libertarian ideals. I wonder where he got those ideas regarding man’s free will and right to exercise it. Could it be…the Enlightenment? The irony is almost overwhelming. This is a point he brings up often. The philosophers of the time certainly did affect the populace, but not by advocating war or revolution. Senseless killing is certainly not rational, nor is being swept away in nationalistic fervor. If waking people up to the reality of their circumstance by giving them a vision of hope for a better tomorrow is a crime, it is one that should be committed more often. The people of the Enlightenment era were simply alerted to the fact that, to paraphrase Rousseau, despite being born free, they were “everywhere in chains.” The people reacted to this knowledge with revolution, and violence is an unfortunate byproduct of the overthrow of established regimes. If these things had not taken place, there would be no United States of America, no democracy, and certainly no libertarianism. Vox Day himself could be similarly vilified by the benefactors of his philosophy for espousing such views, assuming we lived in a world where the Enlightenment had never occurred.

Day goes on to criticize atheism, which he oddly traces back to The Apology of Socrates, which only reveals the etymological roots and certainly not the birth of the lack of belief in god, for not having changed over the years. This is an obscure point. How would the lack of belief in something change exactly? Along with that, he tosses in a few jabs with comments as to the “ultimate destination” for atheists being “hot” and a little argumentum ad populum for good measure. Apparently our “godless jihad,” armed by “raging, red-letter infidels,” consists mainly of writing books and speaking out publicly about our lack of faith. We better be careful to keep the death toll from rising exponentially due to an increase in paper cuts.

He makes the argument that atheism leaves a void in people which must be filled with some belief, no matter how silly or contradictory. He supports this by using a Barna poll about beliefs on life after death and a CNN exit poll to show that people improperly self-identify with certain groups. If his conclusion is accurate, how is it more damaging to atheism than it is to religion? Would it not also be the case that the “billions of individuals” who believe in Jesus are also incorrectly identifying themselves, rendering all such labels meaningless and simultaneously destroying his earlier appeal to popularity? Day claims that “the normal individual tends to put significantly more time into living his life instead of thinking about it and cataloging its abstract aspects.” I agree, and I think that is problematic. It’s akin to being criticized for engaging in introspection, which is not only healthy, but necessary. Somehow related to this is the definition of atheism from the three “representatives” of atheism and their nuances, but I haven’t figured out how it is related, seen as how most arguments centered around definitions tend to be promptly settled by a dictionary.

The pinnacle of this segment is the fact that Sam Harris, leader of all atheists everywhere at all times, practices Buddhism. If anybody else is thinking, “Yeah, so?”--you’re not alone. Is this a criticism of atheism or Sam Harris’ personal beliefs? For all of his ranting about these Buddhist beliefs, he fails to take into account that there are many types of Buddhism, some of which involve no deities and focus instead on personal development. The entire point is irrelevant, though, as Sam Harris’ assertion that Buddhism is not a religion per se says nothing at all about atheism. At least he acknowledges that atheism is neither a religion nor a philosophy—right before he divides us into “churches.”

What Day terms “High Church Atheists” (HCA) consist of the upper echelon of intellectual elitists who also have mental disorders and Asperger’s syndrome, along with being socially inept and never getting laid because they’re too busy destroying the beliefs of their prospective partners. Wow—we’re doomed. Except for the fact that all of those things are pure speculation on an arbitrarily assigned group of people. We also have the “Low Church Atheist,” (LCA) the backwater, inbred cousin that the former wants to hide from the public. The HCA is deemed autistic by one online poll which was answered by 59 people indicating that atheists have an average Asperger’s quotient of 27.9, slightly above normal, but not quite a pathology, along with Day’s own informal survey of 159 of his blog readers. This is not even close to a controlled study from which conclusions can be drawn. The LCA is characterized by their refusal to use the word “atheist”, but that shouldn’t matter since Day already proved that self-labeling is irrelevant. There is a method to his madness, though, because he is about to use this group to skew and obfuscate the prison population studies which show that atheists are less likely to be imprisoned. Earlier in the chapter, he admits that people who answer “no religion” on polls are not necessarily atheist, the validity of self-identification not withstanding, but then wants to lump them in with atheists to get his extra 31.6 percent of the British prison system and then declare that our “Low Church counterparts are nearly four times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime than a Christian.” (p. 20) Watch out—he’s a slippery one!

These LCAs also live seven years less than the average religious person, are more likely to smoke, drink, be depressed, fat, unmarried, and not reproduce. Day then assumes that since so many of them are in jail, they must be less intelligent than average. Well, by using the same flawed data, many conclusions can be drawn about a population of unknown people who happened to check “no religion” when filling out the Inmate Information Survey.

Day finishes off the chapter with the typical agnostic/atheist dichotomy, as if they are mutually exclusive, but Vox, what difference does it make? You already proved that labels are meaningless and that all people with no religion are atheists, so what’s your point? Congratulations, that was the most convoluted, contradictory mess of confabulated casuistry I have ever seen. Honestly, I am impressed. I like ya, though; it’s kind of cute to see you so clearly grasping for straws. Thanks for the book, too—it’s providing me with plenty of material.

I’ll see those of you with shatter-resistant monitors next time for chapter two!

What Day terms “High Church Atheists” (HCA) consist of the upper echelon of intellectual elitists who also have mental disorders and Asperger’s syndrome, along with being socially inept and never getting laid because they’re too busy destroying the beliefs of their prospective partners.

Oh... I would have responded to this earlier, but I was busy finishing up "The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe." It's a scholarly book by a world renowned historian. The truth is, I still could have gotten to responding earlier, but I had to go by my successful restaurant and check in on my happy employees, and then my girlfriend came over and gave me a blow job.

(Truth be told, I don't have Asperger's, though...)

Quote:

We also have the “Low Church Atheist,” (LCA) the backwater, inbred cousin that the former wants to hide from the public.

That's why all those backwater, inbred states show up Red on all the elections, and why the percentage of atheists is so much higher in those educated, northeastern states, right? Oh, and that's why in all polls I've ever seen, religiosity (religious fervor, not just identification) is correlated with low education, right?

Puh Lease.

Quote:

The HCA is deemed autistic by one online poll which was answered by 59 people indicating that atheists have an average Asperger’s quotient of 27.9, slightly above normal, but not quite a pathology, along with Day’s own informal survey of 159 of his blog readers.

Yeah... Asperger's is recognized by unusually high analytic and mathematical reasoning skills, and a fundamental lack of comprehension of social interactions. We definitely shouldn't trust those people who can objectively analyze religion without worrying about social punishment, should we?

Quote:

Earlier in the chapter, he admits that people who answer “no religion” on polls are not necessarily atheist, the validity of self-identification not withstanding, but then wants to lump them in with atheists to get his extra 31.6 percent of the British prison system and then declare that our “Low Church counterparts are nearly four times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime than a Christian.” (p. 20) Watch out—he’s a slippery one!

This is like that Texas study of Christian Substance Abuse Recovery programs. If the numbers don't work, just gerrymander your groups so that everybody who fits the outcome is in the group you want them to be in.

Quote:

These LCAs also live seven years less than the average religious person, are more likely to smoke, drink, be depressed, fat, unmarried, and not reproduce.

This guy already debunked this particular interpretation. He's already said that people with antisocial disorders are atheists. If there's anything more clear than the link between healthy, active social ties and prolonged health, I don't know what it is. It's not the theism that makes theists live longer, it's the pot luck suppers.

Quote:

Thanks for the book, too—it’s providing me with plenty of material.

Christ on a fucking pogo stick... how many chapters are there?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

There you go again, how do you define senseless and who is rational. Is it senseless killing or irrational to abort the unborn? Was Stalin acting in a rational manner when he starved Ukrainians to death? He thought it was rational, he had a plan and a rational motive. Who defines what is senseless and rational?

Vox is just another 40 year old juvenile throwing temper tantrums for attention. He is a failed writer, failed CEO, failed businessman, and got his money from his rich daddy (before rich daddy went to jail for failing to pay taxes) and has freely admitted he has not been successful in business. Well, gosh, if he runs his business the same way he acts on his blog, it wouldn't be hard to understand why. Vox is so brilliant (you don't have to ask, or even wait long for him to tell you), and everybody who disagrees with him is an idiot, mentally retarded, socially autistic, a nazi, or some other ad hominem attack or insult. As an Attention Whore his strategy is to attack prominent people and demand that they respond, or be automatically held guilty for their failure to respond to this "Jackass for Jesus". His understanding of science is piss poor, (he thinks it's an entity) his logic is flawed, and his "book" is more about ad hominem attacks than substance. He thinks that "Historical Evidence" (history is better described as the victors side of the story, will all references to the other side suitably edited) is on a par with scientific evidence, and doesn't even have a clue as to the invalidity of hearsay evidence (he wrote that hearsay evidence is admissible - so much for legal research - but I'm sure if you ask him, he'll tell you that he's smarter than all the lawyers that he knows, so it ought to be). Vox has tried to become famous before by attacking Michelle Malkin, numerous politicians, women, governments, science, knowledge, and the kitchen sink. This is just another attempt by Vox to gain attention whore status by slamming others. Dawkins is right - responding to intellectually dishonest trolls only encourages them further, and may even give them the appearance of legitimacy. TIA will eventually become an embarrasment to those who actually have true faith, actual morals, and live by what Christ taught, instead of just preaching it. Vox is the perfect example of why people are disgusted with Christians. He is arrogant, egotistical, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, obnoxious, juvenile - all the things Jesus taught Christians NOT TO BE. Clearly he didn't get his definition of "Morality" from the Bible! (Hmmm.... wonder where it came from...) When the conclusion of the book is that since science is "irrational", so it's ok for religion to be irrational, too, and so you can't criticize his fantasy religion cause his feelings will be hurt and he will beat you up in a book. That's not much of a logical conclusion, in fact it's irrational, and desperate. What is even more irrational is that Vox believes that "If only everybody believed in my religion there would be heaven on earth". This is a juvenile who is refusing to grow up and face the fact that Santa Claus isn't real. All the whining arguments against science, society, politics, atheists, and every other religion he will never make his fantasy religion real. Don't waste your time arguing with a troll or an idiot on the internet - ignoring them hurts their fragile egos far, far more. Rico PS Didn't anybody ever tell Vox the Easter Bunny isn't real, either?

Kelly, I don't know whether to compliment you on your efforts, or to question your sanity for agreeing to refute this loon's book chapter by chapter. But, hey, I guess somebody needs to point out the flaws and BS.

FYI, I met you and Brian at the AAI conference in VA last year. I was the guy from NY filming stuff about atheism... maybe you recall... anyway, I've begun blogging for the NYC Atheists (http://nyc-atheists.org/blog/). I've mentioned your monumental undertaking there. Good luck! And say hey to Brian from me, please.

There you go again, how do you define senseless and who is rational. Is it senseless killing or irrational to abort the unborn? Was Stalin acting in a rational manner when he starved Ukrainians to death? He thought it was rational, he had a plan and a rational motive. Who defines what is senseless and rational?

No.

Stalin's actions had not a damn thing to do with atheism.

When Christians kill, Christianity is a major (if not the sole) motivating factor.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Vox Day is also rather shamelessly sexist. He claims that women ought not to have the right to vote, claiming that women tend to vote "socialists" and "fascists" and big-government lovers into office (Why women's rights are wrong; never mind that "real" fascists have been as sexist as he could possibly want). It's apparently OK with him for women to own property, but not to vote; he's hung up on property rights.

He's also produced a rather cheesy and buggy first-person shooter, The War in Heaven. Although its concept was interesting, I ended up cheating to get through it, and I found it rather awkward. Having to restart a level if one dies in it? Good Grief!

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/index.html is likely a better account, it seems. Criticizing secular humanists that are off the deep end, rather than the others, (like yourselves) who genuinely seem to reason out your reasoning. I'm firmly Deistic or Agnostic or Gnostic depending on the day and my personal preference, a-theism is no longer my preferred religious descriptor. I abhor religion forcibly recanonized in government as much as many athiests, but I don't take it to the level of forced elimination of expression of belief and faith or caustic divisive attack as many Athiests (somewhat ironically) seem to agitate for.

BTW Whitespace trimming with the link functionality of the site would improve, had some spurious characters at the end of the url in my first attempt.

I didn't think Harris really made the arguments that Vox was saying. Vox has distorted arguments in subtle ways. In order to figure that out you not only have to read Vox, you have to go back and read Harris with more attention. And not just his books, all his articles too because Vox uses them.

Some, like the Red State-Blue State argument, Vox might be right about -- so what? You still have to do what I did with Vox's sources in the above link and check them out like I checked his Tamil Tigers sources.

There you go again, how do you define senseless and who is rational. Is it senseless killing or irrational to abort the unborn? Was Stalin acting in a rational manner when he starved Ukrainians to death? He thought it was rational, he had a plan and a rational motive. Who defines what is senseless and rational?

President Bush has killed heaps of Muslim creationists in Iraq & Afghanistan. Many Muslims accuse him of not believing in god for that reason. But Bush's christian supporters in the U.S. give him a pass on the slaughter because the victims held the "wrong" beliefs about god. How do we know that future historians won't lump Bush in with Stalin as a political mass murderer?

There you go again, how do you define senseless and who is rational. Is it senseless killing or irrational to abort the unborn? Was Stalin acting in a rational manner when he starved Ukrainians to death? He thought it was rational, he had a plan and a rational motive. Who defines what is senseless and rational?

President Bush has killed heaps of Muslim creationists in Iraq & Afghanistan. Many Muslims accuse him of not believing in god for that reason. But Bush's christian supporters in the U.S. give him a pass on the slaughter because the victims held the "wrong" beliefs about god. How do we know that future historians won't lump Bush in with Stalin as a political mass murderer?

I, personally, just wanted to give Kelly a congratulations for being willing to have a discussion with Vox on this topic. It's been disappointing seeing some of the reviews that tend to trail off after a short time and leave after speaking much and saying little. My understanding is that Vox and Kelly arranged a discussion of his book some time ago.

This being said, there's one thing I would like clarification on so I hope that I may get that clarification here. Kelly touched briefly on it by saying that "senseless killing is not rational." I see things to this effect often whenever Stalin or Mao is brought up to show that Atheist regimes can be deadlier than Christian ones. I am curious, how exactly do their killings violate reason?

And scary, atheists in power have killed millions upon millions, and she is defending it.

If Bush, who looks like an atheist to many of the world's Muslims, could become president for life, I feel pretty confident that he would kill at least one million Muslim creationists before his demise. The fact that he has constitutional term limits has probably restrained the death & destruction he felt he could get away with during his eight years in office.

President Bush has killed heaps of Muslim creationists in Iraq & Afghanistan. Many Muslims accuse him of not believing in god for that reason. But Bush's christian supporters in the U.S. give him a pass on the slaughter because the victims held the "wrong" beliefs about god. How do we know that future historians won't lump Bush in with Stalin as a political mass murderer?

Its interesting that Kelly does not deny the atrocities and massacres of the French Revolutionary atheists...she instead defends them, and by Begging The Question.

Her assertion that sucn "progress" as we have had could not have occured otherwise is baseless.

And scary, atheists in power have killed millions upon millions, and she is defending it.

Fortunately, you people will never achieve political office.

First of all, I never once defended atrocities of any sort--I merely stated the nature of revolution and noted that many societal advancements were made possible by the Enlightenment in general.

If my assertion is baseless, explain why the Enlightenment thinkers were some of the most influential regarding the spread of modern democratic systems? Are you proposing that the regimes in power at that time would have just naturally progressed and thereby diminished their own power?

Theists in power have killed millions as well--have you noticed the plank in your eye lately, or only the splinter in mine?

Fortunate it is not. A healthy dose of reason and skepticism would be much better than this bullshit. Save your abecedarian philosophical musings for somebody with an intellect that as diminished as your own.

Vox Day implies that male atheists can't get laid because of inadequate social skills. What about the claim that we get all kinds of "degenerate" sex because we don't believe in a god?

He's confused. It's so much easier to get a theist to have sex with you, because of the increased levels of bullshit in their mental diet. There's no sport to that at all; candy from a baby. Bedding an atheist or a skeptic requires such advanced social skill that if you're not on that day, it could all fall apart. But once we do get into bed, it's definitely "degenerate" (if by "degenerate", he means AWESOME).

He's confused. It's so much easier to get a theist to have sex with you, because of the increased levels of bullshit in their mental diet. There's no sport to that at all; candy from a baby. Bedding an atheist or a skeptic requires such advanced social skill that if you're not on that day, it could all fall apart. But once we do get into bed, it's definitely "degenerate" (if by "degenerate", he means AWESOME).

LOL!

If there was a hell, I think the only thing I've ever said that would send me there was when I was talking about theist girls and said, "Christian girls are really easy. You just have to be willing to put up with the crying and guilt afterward."

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

I was just wondering what church I belonged to. I am a teenager living with a middle class family. I have no history of mental disease and am moderately intelligent. I figure I need to split off a new church, but since Vox has apparently appointed himself high preist (seeing as how he's seperating us into churches) I might need to get his permission first. Or maybe I could cut him out of my religous doctrine, if I had one. Sigh... Oh well.

If there was a hell, I think the only thing I've ever said that would send me there was when I was talking about theist girls and said, "Christian girls are really easy. You just have to be willing to put up with the crying and guilt afterward."

I have a feeling that the thing that draws people to religion is a submissive qualilty of personality that a lot of women go for like crazy. I mean, c'mon - how many times have I heard "tie me up and smack my ass?"

Hmm. Too much information?

Seriously, though. If a woman's hot and willing to believe in invisible ... stuff, I'm pretty sure a card trick is going to get her in bed. "I've been saved!" You'll sleep with me in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...

You know what is just idiotic. Athiests. You try so hard to fight a God that you don't think is there. You really know there is a higher power but Satan decieves you into thinking there isn't. Believe in a god or not he wins. So when you try to get people to convert to athiest think about. Why do you care so much if people believe in God or not. Why? You are contradicting yourselves. You hear God speak but you don't listen. Comment back please. If you truly didn't believe in a god you would not care what other people did or did not believe.

Listen up and listen good. You haven't listened to Jesus so listen to me. There is a God. You see we Christians have something to fight for. We have our God. You Athiests don't. You try so hard to fight a god that you don't think is there. If you seek God you will find him. I hate it when athiests in California and everywhere else keep trying to take God out of schools. It is not unconstitutional to have God in schools in fact, it's the other way around. This country was founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ. The constitution has 27 biblical amendments that are forbidden. 52 of the 55 men who signed the Decleration of Independence were active members in their church. They believed you couldn't call yourself an American if you didn't have Jesus in your life. And it makes perfect logical and amazing sense that there is a God. How was the universe formed. As science would say you can't get something from nothing. Please email me because no matter what God will win. Trust him and you will be pardoned from your sin. Reject him and you will burn forever in everlasting fire. The choice is yours.

See subject. I don't listen to those who are clearly ignorant. There is no god. You see, we atheists have something to fight for. We have our rights and morals. You have lies and no education. You try so hard to fight a god that you can't even prove is there. Why should anyone need to seek a supposedly all-present, all-knowing, almighty being in order to find him? I hate it when theists here in California and everywhere else keep trying to put your imaginary god into schools as actual curriculum. It is unconstitutional to have your god in schools; in fact, it is unconstitutional to try to force your silly ideals and make-believe stories into anyone's face at all. This country was founded on freedom and the ability to choose your own beliefs. The Constitution has nothing to do with your bible, but rather with the people's rights to freedom. 52 of the 55 men who signed the Declaration of Independence were active members of their church that followed their belief codes, which also included sexism and slavery as both being quite acceptable. They believed you couldn't call yourself an American if you didn't follow such belief codes perhaps, although we have clearly moved on from stupidity like sexism and slavery. It makes absolutely no sense that there is some magical mystical being on a cloud somewhere above us that sees us when we're sleeping, knows when we're awake, knows if we've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake. How was the universe formed? As science would say you can't get something from nothing, but it also is slowly learning more about the somethings in our universe that don't include explaining it all by utilizing a magical entity. It would be a waste of time to email you. You won't understand how damaging and stupid it is to trust in imaginary friends. You won't understand that learning proven truths in the world around you will make you a happier person. The choice is yours.

Okay, seriously, the Vox Day moron seems to be making all the same points my father has - only less compellingly. Are we sure 'Vox Day" isn't just a really stupid pen name? Or does the astonishing innanity of his name truly match the astonishing ignorance of his writing?

Nice review so far, Kelly! I'm not certain I want to read any more (my new laptop isn't shatter-proof), but that's okay because I'm not the one you need to convince.

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie

It is a pen name, indeed. His real name is Theodore Beale. He is a musician, author and game designer who, probably by pure coincidence, thinks that god is a lot like a game designer. He is also very proud to have his very own Wikipedia entry, if you'd like to read some more.

Seriously, anyone who has actually read the book (You can read it absolutely free of charge at irrationalatheist.com BTW) could tell that you barely touched his first chapter. I hope and pray to God that Vox Day doesn't dignify this BS with any sort of response.

One part of this "Debunking" which was deliciously absurd was your contention that thanks to the Enlightenment philosophers of post-revolution France we would still be living in "a Feudal Society". This sounds like you completely missed his point. Atheists and non-theists were in control of the French Government after the overthrow of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Their (The "Enlightened" Philosophers) musings paved the way for the tyranny seen in Robespierre's "Reign of Terror".

BTW, the reason we dont live in Feudal societies is the Black Death, not the French Revolution. For a fuller exposition of this argument, skip ahead to his "Red Hand of Atheism" Chapter.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias

For whatever reason Kelly quit this project and up to this point no one has successfully finished reviewing Day’s book...until now. I have (just about*) completed a chapter by chapter rebuttal of The Irrational Atheist and I show why Day is wrong in much detail. Anyone care to take a look?

The one commentator is correct. It’s very important to read Vox’s sources because he often takes the New Atheists out of context and many times his arguments are subtle but if you look closely his distortions are pretty easy to spot.

* I still have a very small part of the book to review from pages 214-231 dealing with the Crusades, Inquisition, and human sacrifice because I’m still reading books to learn more about these subjects so I can check Day’s facts but the rest of the review is finished. I just wanted to post it a bit early.